MovieChat Forums > Zombieland (2009) Discussion > Three things I didn't like in order of i...

Three things I didn't like in order of importance

posted 10 years ago by VivienCastro
26 replies | jump to latest

1. Girls and the love plot. i liked Columbus a lot, but I didn't like him in relation to Whichita whom I found extremely annoying. I didn't care about the love story or the girls characters (younger sister wasn't that bad in herself but without the older one she serves no purpose.) It was not interesting to see them get together. I much more enjoyed the interactions between the guys and the zombie plot and I think it would be so much more enjoyable without romance and those two acting cool. W was tedious.

The whole part in amusement park was so stupid on their end as well.

Also, how great would it be if Woody just killed them after the first incident and surprised us all who knew where it was all going? It would have been awesome, and its a missed opportunity in favor of keeping the old formula. It would have been a great survivalism point and add even more to Woody's character.

2. Bill Murray. It felt like it was there just because BM is so cool and let him do something random and cool in this film as well. But it was pointless and the whole part in his house just took from a story (of course that is where the stupid romantic moments happened too.) I get this movie wasn't about being super realistic and serious, but that just totally ruined it and really took from the story completely.

3. I don't think they needed to make Woody's sad story switch from a dog to a child. Losing a dog can be just as traumatic. And it would be more interesting for me. I didn't have any emotional switch when it was revealed it was really his son, as I already sympathized enough, and it was like it trivialized losing a dog. Ok, I get that most people might disagree with me here, but for me it was an unnecessary element. Also looking at him as a dad put me off a bit, it didn't really fit him in my opinion.

Otherwise, i thought it was real fun to watch, I liked the guys a lot, Tallehassee was fun and Columbus was very cute (but would get extremely annoying when obsessing over that girl, and like someone else mentioned to me while we watched, kept making faces like he is smiling and crying at the same time when around her.) There were really good moments there.

[–] fanatic21 10 years ago

Honestly, the three things you mentioned were three of my very favorite things about the film.

You lose harrelsons backstory, the two girls, the theme park, and the bill Murray cameo (one of the GOAT cameos IMO) and you have a very, very different movie.

But whatever floats your boat lol

[–] super-staff 10 years ago

Honestly, the three things you mentioned were three of my very favorite things about the film.

You lose harrelsons backstory, the two girls, the theme park, and the bill Murray cameo (one of the GOAT cameos IMO) and you have a very, very different movie.

Agreed.

[–] VivienCastro 10 years ago

I changed my mind on BM cameo in the meanwhile. Because it was a great scene when he killed B< by accident. I think I just hated the romance that took place there.

I still hate the girls and think that if Woody killed them, that would be great. Theme park could have still happened if a different element or character led them to it. I loved that part of course. I am just saying, no romance and girl would be much better for me in this movie.

Harrelsons backsory for me works just fine with the dog, in fact it made me love his character and see him as a great person because not many people love their animals so deeply unfortunately, so those who do are to me good people. But they had to make it a kid, so typical and like I said, it didn't even make it seem worse at all imo, it just annoyed me that they used the death of a dog as a "not that bad" thing/excuse.

[–] xanxei 10 years ago

3. I don't think they needed to make Woody's sad story switch from a dog to a child. Losing a dog can be just as traumatic. And it would be more interesting for me. I didn't have any emotional switch when it was revealed it was really his son, as I already sympathized enough, and it was like it trivialized losing a dog.

Dude. Just, no.

Even I, who neither have nor want nor like kids, and who adore the hell out of my pooch, understand the magnificent wrongness of what you said here. Holy no.

[–] VivienCastro 10 years ago

Love is love, you can love a dog more than anything in the world, you can love a kid, not love a kid... you can love any other human being or animal... . Given that everyone "has to" love their kid and many people don't really connect to animals, when it was about the dog it made me see Woody in a very beautiful way as a person. Then it turns out it's just kid.

[–] montoblonde 10 years ago

Everything you have said about loving kids and animals bothers me GREATLY, but two statements really stand out to me.

The first, "you can love a dog more than anything in the world, you can love a kid, not love a kid..." SERIOUSLY, I you mixed it up a little there. You can love or not love a kid?!?!?!? That is just the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard. People who believe this, or actually love animals more than their own flesh and blood have a problem.

The other phrase is when you said that everyone "has to love their kid". You do not have to love your kid. Your child is apart of you. Apart of who you are. You don't have to love your child... YOU WANT TO, and not because you have to. If you have kids then you know what I am saying.

I have had both dogs and cats as pets. And even though I cared for them and were hurt when they passed I NEVER felt the way I did when my boys were born. I would die for my boys, not my pets. If you think otherwise, than I feel for you.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VivienCastro 10 years ago

I'm 27, and will never have children. Not my thing. So don't worry.

[–] Rexfellis 10 years ago

Vivien, I honestly hope you never do have kids. I love animals too, my dog is part of my family. In my opinion you have a very warped sense of priorities. But, to each their own.

Rex

P.S. I liked the movie

[–] jamesdean-13 9 years ago

27? You're still young/figuring out who you are.
I always find it odd/annoying when young people say "I'm never having kids" because you don't know what life will bring you. Every young person I know has said that and so far, they've been wrong.

[–] VivienCastro 9 years ago

And yet people that age and younger make life altering choice to reproduce all the time and no one tells them that they might change their mind, although when they do the consequences are far worse.

Btw don't worry about me. I know where I stand. Interesting how much your type hopes my type would end up changing though. Misery loves company?

[–] Menandros 10 years ago

No what?
He said how it made him feel, what's there to "no"?

[–] Songwriter_90210 10 years ago

Why do you people keep calling Vivien a "he"? Weird.

[–] MovieMaster95 10 years ago

I'm rewatching the film right now for the first time in years and I completely agree. They're introduced as extremely unlikeable and then about midway into the film we're expected to like them because they're now being nice to the guys for whatever reason. Seriously, why did they take the guys hostage? They never explained it. You don't steal someone's car twice and then give them a ride.

That and giving Columbus a love interest really wasn't necessary. It just stilted his entire character growth, since now he's just the guy trying to get into the girls pants and we know exactly what's going to happen. It would have been such a better film if we just watched Columbus and Tallahassee gradually growing closer together as they travelled through Zombieland.

"We'll be alive but like a nightmare. You drink blood, you won't wake up from nightmare."

[–] Songwriter_90210 10 years ago

They only seem unlikable because we are introduced to the guys first. They are surviving alone. Had we been introduced to the girls first and gotten their back stories, then they hatched a plane to get a car out of a couple of strange guys, we would be on their side. We would be thinking that the guys only want "one thing", and they somehow deserved to get taken advantage of. We would think the girls clever. All because we met them first.

[–] VivienCastro 10 years ago

No, they are unlikable of their unlikable personalities.

[–] JudgeNotLestYeBeJudgeReinhold 9 years ago

You're the most unlikable person I've ever come across, and I don't even know what you look like.

[–] Songwriter_90210 9 years ago

Hahaha! F-you! lol...

[–] VivienCastro 10 years ago

>It would have been such a better film if we just watched Columbus and Tallahassee gradually growing closer together as they travelled through Zombieland.

Couldn't agree more.

[–] libra113 10 years ago

Yeah, I think they handled the girls all wrong. It was fun the first time with the twist that they seemed to be helpless and in need then turned the tables on the guys and robbed them blind. However, to have them suddenly switch gears and become friends seemed kind of forced.

I would almost have liked it better if they had stayed rivals except with them taking turns getting the better of each other but only for a little while. It would get old fast so it couldn't really be played for the whole movie.

That or they needed to explore their backgrounds more and explain WHY they were the way they were. I always assumed they had abusive or neglectful parents and had to fend for themselves. Figured the older one left home as soon as she was able and either then, or later, took the younger one with her to protect her and did cons just to survive with this idea of getting to California and starting over. Something like that to make them more sympathetic would've been nice. As it was the movie gives us nothing other than they're heartless con artist who take advantage of the stereotypical dumb men who see the older one looking all sexy and start thinking with their cocks. Kind of sexist both ways really.

As for the Murray thing. Yeah it was silly and yeah it was pointless but it was funny and it was a nice break from the zombies. :) I'm thankful it was just someone good and not someone they picked because they're popular with the kids today.

And for the dog/kid thing. I think it was a nice twist that he was lying about it being a dog then suddenly broke down and admitted it was his child. Yeah, it's a common zombie movie trope and I can see where the original poster is coming from but it's still a nice character moment.

Yes, the amusement park thing was stupid as hell but then again, as we probably all know, the whole idea started out as a series so when it was rejected and became a movie they had to come up with an ending, a place to go. Wasn't the best choice but at least it wasn't a safe zone or something like most of these movies have.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] loverUNDfighter 9 years ago

Lame.

All three complaints are just lame.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamesdean-13 9 years ago

"Trivialized the lose of a dog." Ha really??

[–] aios-dum 9 years ago

I'm with you on no. 3.
Looks like they didn't want to go for something insightful, just plain obvious and tear-jerking. my impression of it

[–] VivienCastro 9 years ago

Insightful is the right word. When it was about the dog, I instantly got drawn to his character and had empathy for what happened. And then they changed it to just the same old cliche motivation.