I was 22 years old when the first Zombieland was released and I ate it up like it was made for me. It was in the early stages of that zombie-zeitgeist that made up a good portion of the 2010s, just after the previous run that spanned the late 90s to the mid-2000s. This was around the time I learned that I loved zombie stories. I got deep into Romero’s works, and played my fair share of the Resident Evil series.
So the idea of a comedy about zombies was inherently appealing and I fell in love with Zombieland. It’s been 10 years, though. I have grown… but Zombieland never did.
Catching up with Colombus and the Gang
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) is a horror-comedy following a group of survivors around the undead USA. The film is a sequel to 2009’s Zombieland and reunites the entire cast (yes, even that one, the voice of a certain talking orange tabby). The film is set about a decade after the original film.
Being together for a decade is sure to test the limits of any family, and the story follows a slight fracturing as members of the core four seek to find something different. Eventually, Little Rock finds herself on the road with Berkley, a self-styled hippie, leading to a chase across the US to find Little Rock. The zombies of Zombieland, however, have evolved, bringing in a whole host of new challenges.
Double Tap shows the ongoing adventures of Columbus, Tallahassee, Witchita, and Little Rock, and introduces a much larger world compared to the lean original film. Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin reprise their roles. The expanded cast also adds Rosario Dawson, Zoey Deutch, Luke Wilson, and Thomas Middleditch. And yes, Bill Murray returns. He’s become quite the zombie-fan it seems.
Ruben Fleischer returns to direct the sequel, written by Rhett Reese, Paul Wenick, and Dave Callaham.
What works about Zombieland: Double Tap?
Zombieland: Double Tap is basically a slight tweak on the first film, and that’s fine. It doesn’t aspire to do much beyond expand the scope of the world a bit and throw in a couple of roadblocks here and there. That’s fine. It’s just not all that compelling.
What worked with the original Zombieland has been diminished after about a decade of other zombie films and other comedies. As long as you don’t expect much, it is a fun little movie. There are some legitimately fun moments, such as a great one-take-style fight against two of the new “super zombies” in a tourist-trap motel themed around Elvis Presley. At this moment, and the moment just prior to – a rather meta meeting of archetypes – the movie is at its best.
The decision to expand the scope of the film by including so many other survivors is ultimately a neat idea, but it does not deliver much beyond that meta-gag of Columbus and Tallahassee’s doubles.
What didn’t work?
Double Tap feels like a sequel that came far too late. It feels slower and less bright, unlike those super-zombies, it introduces. It also is quick to raise interesting ideas and throw them aside as well. The ominous herd of these super-zombies seems like a real threat, especially when they establish them as individual threats. However, the ending kind of forgets how powerful and relentless these zombies are and it turns them into, again, a mindless horde.
The characters do not really feel all that interesting after ten years. Woody Harrelson still carries the film as Tallahassee and remains the highlight. The other characters, however, are highly static. Eisenberg’s Columbus comes off as more irritating than quirky ten years later. Emma Stone’s Wichita is curiously subdued and has an emotional arc that sort of doesn’t really work dramatically. Abigail Breslin’s Little Rock is playing the same notes from the first film, only a little surlier and full of teenage angst. Rosario Dawson’s Reno is just a sort of stock, Rosario Dawson role.
Zombieland: Double Tap is also just incredibly sterile-feeling for a film about flesh-eating undead. It has that reliance on CGI mayhem that strips the tangible threat of the zombies away. Zombies work best as practical effects and CGI blood carries absolutely no weight.
It all feels so toothless, which is what is so sad. But looking back on the original, which was something I did about a month ago, I realize that what worked then largely does not work now. I think I left Zombieland behind, there wasn’t that same sort of spark I had at 22 years old.
Final Impressions
Zombieland: Double Tap is a safe and suitable follow up to the original, with an emphasis on safe. It is more of the same which will appeal to some viewers but ultimately left me feeling cold.
The mid-credit scene, however, is a lot of fun.
(2 / 5)
Do you feel we were fair in our assessment of Zombieland: Double Tap? Why not check out some more of our reviews at Haunted MTL?
Anna (2013), also known as Mindscape, is a psychological thriller directed by Jorge Dorado. This R-rated directorial debut stars Mark Strong, Taissa Farmiga, Brian Cox, Saskia Reeves, Richard Dillane, and Indira Varma. As of this review, interested viewers can watch this film on VUDU, Hoopla, Plex Channel, Pluto TV, Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Amazon Prime, and more. Anna originally released in 2013, but it released in the US in 2014.
Struggling to return to his work as a memory detective, John (Mark Strong) pursues a new assignment. Anna (Taissa Farmiga) views John as her last chance to prove her innocence before she’s condemned to an asylum. As John searches through her memories, a tale of abuse and manipulation unravels.
Mindscape Cover of Anna (2013)
What I Like about Anna (2013)
Anna earned three nominations but no award recognition. From the Sitges–Catalonian International Film Festival, it earned a nomination for Best Motion Picture. The Goya Awards recognized Jorge Dorado with the 2014 nomination for Best New Director. Finally, Anna received a nomination from the Gaudí Awards for Best Art Direction.
Taissa Farmiga’s performance balances the line between suspicious and innocent, which is necessary for this unraveling mystery. It’s a delicate role, but Taissa Farmiga brings to life the material given.
No products found.
Anna‘s plot rotates around a new fringe science that’s slowly gaining traction. It’s less a dissection of this science and more a norm that Anna expects viewers to believe. It’s an interesting concept, though not unique. Still, it’s a nice additional dynamic to the mystery.
While not a horrifying film, it does deliver a mystery that keeps viewers engaged with enough hooks to add an extra layer before something gets stale. That mystery does linger in the mind in some respects but doesn’t haunt the viewer.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Despite Anna not depicting these moments, sexual assault remains a recurring element of the film. Little remains conclusive, with some suggestions that these are false allegations. Furthering this point, the film depicts Anna as a manipulator and flirt when some incidents suggest she’s a survivor of assault.
Derogatory language might upset some, but these remain brief moments. The use indicates a particular character’s immaturity, but I’ll raise the point regardless. Furthering this line of analysis is a moment where a bullied character is implied to be gay, but it’s likely just an insult.
While not inherently a trigger, this new field of science earns the claim of being somewhere between forensic science and lie detector tests, a massive gap that anything can fit in. It makes everything subjective when the film wants to claim absolute evidence. I can’t help but wonder what exploring that unreliability might look like, but that’s not this film.
Mark Strong as John
What I Dislike about Anna (2013)
The biggest deal breaker for some is this concept of a teen mastermind. I won’t go into details about the mystery, but I am often fatigued with this idea of a teen femme fatale. While Anna gives enough mystery, it’s an overused trope.
Mark Strong’s performance delivers on the material, but John seems so easily manipulated for someone who does this as a profession. While out of practice, I don’t understand why he believes or doesn’t believe information. If Anna depicts John as overly critical or gullible, the film will have a more consistent character.
I assume there remains an understandable reason for the name change, but Anna appears as a common title for a film, spinning a series of some recognition. Mindscape also earns some recognition and competition, but it’s a more memorable title than a single noun name.
Final Thoughts
Anna provides an interesting concept and mystery, but many shortcomings hinder the execution. Viewers eager for a psychological mystery with a drop of sci-fi, Anna delivers an engaging story. However, the market does provide competition, making it a tough film to recommend. (3 / 5)
“The Demon of Parenthood” is the eighth episode of season 3 of Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate cursed toys in a terrible attack against commerce, but Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has a finger on the potential issue. David (Mike Colter) receives another task from the Entity. Kristen (Katja Herbers) learns more about her missing egg. Leland (Michael Emerson) invites Dr Boggs (Kurt Fuller) to the darker side of spirituality. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) takes her granddaughter to work.
Evil Season 3 Cover
What I Like about “The Demon of Parenthood”
I enjoy the espionage aspect of the Entity, pushing David to questionable grounds as he navigates what’s right against what’s demanded of him. While this plotline doesn’t reach its full potential, this episode highlights one of the more interesting opportunities of this idea. The Entity consistently interferes with the procedural case, possibly covering up abuse to support its objectives. This episode highlights this dynamic to perfection.
Kristen gets pulled in multiple directions, forced to question her trust in David, and faces a unique horror after learning about her missing egg. While I won’t dive deeper into this issue for this review, it’s safe to say this episode belongs to Kristen, and Katja Herbers delivers. Her unsettling night terrors suggest an intuitive understanding of some of the manipulations around her, highlighting these moments to the viewer by proxy. Beyond these meta moments, the execution of these night terrors remains pleasantly unsettling.
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Among a constant trail of failures, Leland lingers in the background as he puts pieces together for his master plan. We don’t see the full scope of his vision yet, but the suspense it builds for future episodes earns its place. I’m interested to see how these plots will evolve, even if Leland’s luck seems to turn sour. Perhaps it’s because of this dynamic that the tension works so effectively.
With a shocking moment tied into this episode, “The Demon of Parenthood” creates one of the more haunting episodes. However, the greatest accomplishment in the episode is what it establishes for the future of the series. While not all these points follow through by the end of Evil, it’s still an episode that ripples across the show’s progression.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Without diving into too many details, spousal abuse and murder occur in the episode. This abuse might indicate a demonic influence, but such points remain speculation.
A severed body part and some gore stand out in this episode. It hardly earns enough attention from fans of gory horror, but the squeamish should tread carefully toward the end.
Horrible Realizations at Night
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Parenthood”
Many dropped ideas seem genuinely interesting, building to some potential development that receives little payoff. Missing these opportunities will never feel satisfying. While some changes are understandable, it creates holes in the narrative. For example, Dr. Boggs’ dark seduction slows in pace, becoming implied or withheld from the audience soon after “The Demon of Parenthood.” These experiences often adapt the concept of evil that the show seeks to bring to life.
Sheryl’s compliance with Leland’s plan still seems underdeveloped as a concept, especially with how far she takes it in this episode. While later episodes add a different perspective, I can’t help but feel these are retcons or concepts not thoroughly thought out.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Parenthood” progresses the plot and delivers some genuinely haunting moments. While a retrospective assessment does note many missed opportunities, the episode stands up beyond these missed opportunities. (4.5 / 5)
Eternal (2004) is a horror thriller written and directed by Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This R-rated film stars Caroline Néron, Victoria Sanchez, Conrad Pla, and Ilona Elkin. As of this review, it is available for Amazon Prime members with renting options from Spectrum on Demand.
When Raymond Pope’s (Conrad Pla) wife disappears, he’s swept into the mystery of Elizabeth Kane (Caroline Néron). As his investigation becomes increasingly bizarre, bodies pile up and point to Raymond Pope. Will he clear his name, or will this bloody rampage drown him?
Eternal Poster
What I Like about Eternal
While all of the performances add to the film, Eternal thrives on the charisma and mystique of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth. She enchants her targets, lowering their defenses until that final moment.
Conrad Pla’s Raymond Pope also requires a delicate approach to succeed. The sleazy and hypocritical detective seems genuinely concerned for his wife (at least initially) and sells that concern. While far from an easy character to root for, the audience understands him and the danger he faces.
There’s a heavy erotic thriller angle that Eternal delivers on. I’ll linger on this point in later sections, but it certainly knows how to build tension within a single scene or between characters. These moments don’t feel forced, and while they often target a male audience, interesting dynamics rise above general exploitative content, if only slightly.
This seems to be a passion project between the creators, Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This passion lingers in the moments to deliver something unique, if not without its flaws. The film doesn’t hold back, a point that fluctuates between negative and positive depending on the situation. Regardless, it holds a charm in that commitment that’s hard to replicate without passion behind the scenes.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
The film labels itself as “Inspired by True Events,” which only relates to the general discussion of Elizabeth Báthory. It’s also worth mentioning that, much like Vlad Dracula, her story remains heavily dominated by modern interpretations. I won’t pretend to hold exclusive knowledge of these historical figures, but cultural interpretation reduces realism. The claim means little to nothing.
The predatory queer trope applies to Eternal, with little complexity to challenge the point as the violence often targets women. It’s important to note that Elizabeth acts as a femme fatale in general, but the targets remain clear. However, this film did earn a moment of recognition from the Glitter Awards (a clip was used in 2006), which might suggest the standout performance of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth earns back some goodwill.
Elizabeth (Caroline Néron) and Irina (Victoria Sanchez) Drink Wine and Plot Crime
What I Dislike about Eternal
The erotic thriller holds a stigma that Eternal doesn’t challenge. Elizabeth remains a clear femme fatale with a slightly supernatural twist. While the performance executes this character perfectly, viewers likely know if this remains an interest or a tired cliche for themselves.
While most of Raymond’s acts make sense for the character, I hold issue with the end. Without going into too many details, he is asked to do one thing to protect himself and does the opposite for no reason. Perhaps this indicates supernatural influence, but such a claim lingers in headcanon.
The film ends ambiguously, which hardly seems fitting given the evidence and weakens the overall film. A definitive ending, or something moderately more definitive, would strengthen Eternal.
Final Thoughts
Eternal’s major obstacle in executing its erotic thriller is that of tired tropes in the modern era. If one looks past these dated points, there’s a haunting thriller that can meet moments of excellence. The plot falls short in many areas towards the end of the film. Ultimately, if a vampire-esque thriller interests you, Eternal certainly adds its perception to the niche but in a familiar form. (3.5 / 5)