Zombie land or Shaun, discuss.

[bassman]

Two totally different films, imo. I enjoy them both for different reasons. I would have to say Shaun is my favorite, though.

[octo7]

wow i am suprised there is even debate. zombieland was cheap fun, shaun was something much more than that. if bill murray and woody werent in it, it would have been Superbad but a lot less funny, the main character SUCKED and was completely derivative of the guy in superbad... the plot was terrible (oh wait there was none) and the characters retarded "HEY LETS TURN ON A FUN FAIR! THE ZOMBIES WON'T NOTICE" and these same people survived longer than everyonr else? the constant call-backs to the 'rules' and the CG font that kept popping up was also extremely cheap. the slow-mo sequence near the end was also an incredibly cheap way to try to heighten the drama of a situation with no feeling of threat whatsoever.

[capncnut]

This as a poll is useless because we all know Shaun's gonna totally landslide it.

[clanglee]

I felt like Zombieland was a wonderful horror movie setting that became a comedy by inserting quirky characters and having some great interplay between them. With different characters (and remove the comedic filming elements) this is a horror movie. The zombies were always zombies. They never broke character for gags. I got into the zombie survival rules and watching how each of the characters managed in the zombie world. Shaun was a great movie, but I think it sacrificed too much plausibility for the laughs. It lost me in places. The zombies held to some rules sometimes, but not others. It was very British in that it would step outside of itself for a gag. But, that meant I never could get into it as a survival movie. A great comedy - but nothing more. You know, that is wierd, because I felt kind of the same way but opposite. To me, Shaun was a much better "serious" zombie movie. I bought the zombies and the situation in Shaun a bit more than in ZL. I guess it was the lack of flash bang boom. It just felt more real to me. In any case. . I loved both movies. Just liked Shaun a bit better.

[Trin]

LOL how was zombieland in any way a horror setting? Compare it to 28 Days Later. It's like the exact same setting. I never bought the situation in Shaun. He stumbles around in the zombie apocalypse without even realizing there are zombies. They throw records at a zombie in the backyard. They pretend to be zombies to evade capture. And when they started bickering the zombies all formed a circle around them and did NOT attack. It was great slapstick, and funny as hell, but it sacrificed any attempt at being a serious zombie movie to get laughs. I just thought that the ZL characters and zombies broke character less for slapstick or gags. I also really like the kid with his rules and woody with his brute force method of survival. And the combo of them was wonderful.   I will say that ZL broke the rules to have BM using makeup to walk amongst the zombies. I don't think that should've worked. It was obvious they only did that for gag laughs, based on the fact that the characters never made any attempt to integrate that into their survival strategy. I thought that was funny, but took me out of the story too much to be worth it.

[octo7]

what about his mum? and his relationship with his stepdad?

[clanglee]

No disrespect but i really didnt expect you americans to get shaun at all, i think its very british humour and im honestly suprised it fared over there at all. . Hey!!! I'll have you know that there is a very large portion of the American populous that enjoys British humor. I grew up watching Monty Python and Faulty Towers and Black Adder etc etc. ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ---------- Compare it to 28 Days Later. It's like the exact same setting. I never bought the situation in Shaun. He stumbles around in the zombie apocalypse without even realizing there are zombies. They throw records at a zombie in the backyard. They pretend to be zombies to evade capture. And when they started bickering the zombies all formed a circle around them and did NOT attack. It was great slapstick, and funny as hell, but it sacrificed any attempt at being a serious zombie movie to get laughs. I just thought that the ZL characters and zombies broke character less for slapstick or gags. I also really like the kid with his rules and woody with his brute force method of survival. And the combo of them was wonderful.   I will say that ZL broke the rules to have BM using makeup to walk amongst the zombies. I don't think that should've worked. It was obvious they only did that for gag laughs, based on the fact that the characters never made any attempt to integrate that into their survival strategy. I thought that was funny, but took me out of the story too much to be worth it. I think it was more of a tone or feel thing for me. Shaun just felt more serious, like the approach to the subject was handled in a more serious manner. I dunno. . I can't quite place my finger on it. But I find it interesting that we picked different movies for essentially the same reason.

[Philly_SWAT]

One thing that no one has mentioned is that Shawn was.....a good...."general concept way of humor". What I mean is, Hot Fuzz was done almost the EXACT same was as Shawn. Sure the stories and most of the cast were different, but the way the comedy was set up was the same. The way they....showed several quick shots in a row to show what someone just did, was the same in both movies. I suspect they could come up with another movie with a totally different plot line than either, but use the SAME WAY it was put together, and it would be a good movie. To make another example, its how Curb Your Enthusiasm is put together just like a Seinfeld episode was. It shows you that the genius of Seinfeld was due to Larry David's writing above all other things. Zombieland on the other hand, it a totally unique concept. Not to say another movie with a different storyline couldnt be done with the same process (rules onscreen, cool cameo, etc), but to my knowledge nothing like that has been done before.

[blind2d]

Not sure how I feel about the young people thing. I just turned 20, and I absolutely loathe runners. Damn, if our (America's) younger generation is all that way, I'm staying celibate! No kid needs that kind of mindless torture. Shaun has much better music, acting (Murray excluded), pace (picante sauce!), atmosphere, believability, etc. Hands down.

[JDFP]

Bill Nighy was also in "Shaun", And I think Nighy is not only one of the finest British actors out there, but one of the finest actors out there PERIOD. I freaking love Bill Nighy. Favorite flick with him has to be "Still Crazy". Absolutely amazing movie. He's like a mix between Robert Plant and well, Bill Nighy. If you haven't seen it add it to your Netflix or Blockbuster queue now. It's great stuff. Now that I think about it, the "Harry Potter" flicks use mostly British actors, they should have picked Nighy to play Lord Voldemort, I think he would have done an amazing job in the role. j.p.

[MoonSylver]

I voted Shaun. Everyone else has pretty much hit all the reasons. Just better almost all the way around (except Woody/Tallahassee...he's up there w/ everything in Shaun on the awesome-meter). Shaun hits ALL the right notes for a zed flick, period. It's a zombie movie with comedy, rather than a comedy with zombies. Zombieland is just a LITTLE too silly & implausible for me to take as seriously as Shaun (if that makes sense) Not that I didn't love Zombieland (the more I think about it the more I like it & want to see it again...can't wait for the DVD!), but to me it's just not in the same league as Shaun...