In my experience of watching films over many years, particularly those of the horror genre, I've noticed there are two story ingredients that often do not mesh well.

Those are zombies, or any variation of the flesh eating undead creatures, and comedy. In fact, its my belief that horror and flat out humor should be avoided altogether in most cases. Perhaps its just the old school John Carpenter mindset I can't escape. I like my humor sparse, and when its there I like it dark. That's just how I am. I mean, these days I laugh at Prince Of Darkness but not because its funny, I've just seen it too many god damned times.

I can admit when I am wrong though, as few and far between as that may be. There are shining examples of intelligent humor interwoven with a seriously and respectfully handled horror element. Shaun of the Dead is the prime example of meshing genres and sub-genres and actually getting it right. Return of the Living Dead is also another fine choice. Let's face facts, even as downright wacky as that film got, the risen dead in that were the first running zombies I'd ever seen. Plus they communicated, set traps, and more or less couldn't be killed. Such a problem in fact that we all remember what happened around six am eastern standard time.

Insert government directed nuclear warhead here please.

Such brings me to the newly released zombie splatter comedy gore fest called Zombieland. I watched the trailers with a reserved hesitancy. While there was promise shown, particularly regarding Woody Harrelson, I wondered whether this would be a good American retort to Shaun of the Dead, or will this for lack of a better metaphor remove the head or destroy the brain of the zombie genre of horror.

Its happened before. Undead in 2003 by the Spierig brothers was a completely disjointed mess, once again solidifying to my best knowledge that George Miller is the only good director to come out of Australia. And Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was a long fucking time ago, so don't think I'm cutting him much slack.

Also in 2006, there was a tongue in cheek zombie flick called Fido , which outside of its amusing 1950's propaganda film reel beginning, showing how zombies had been domesticated and used as tools in everyday life, was unbearable to me.

Unless you're Bub and Dr. Logan is seeing if you can work a Colt .45 and behave properly, I don't want domesticated zombies goddamn it.

I really hate Dead Alive too, but I digress.

So, can I trust first time director Ruben Fleischer to bring me something that can make me laugh like Evil Dead 2 yet also make sure the zombies are never played for cheap laughs?

Surprisingly and for the most part, yes I can.

I wasn't entirely sure at first, the opening scene of the film was enough to make me roll my eyes and I'll admit I wasn't sold on Zombieland immediately.

The opening of the film is from a first person camera perspective, and you hear an individual talking, essentially setting up for the audience in a few sentences that the zombie apocalypse has indeed fell upon society. You get a few glimpses of what is Washington D.C. in ruins, structural fires, past car accidents, you know, the fun stuff you'd expect. The nameless speaker then gets attacked by a zombie and following a fairly decent physical bite effect, the zombie proceeds to look into the camera and pick at his teeth.

Alarm bells are ringing. I hang my head. Please don't make the zombies funny like that. That's not what I want. Don't make them do funny things like that. If you're going to desperately want to be Shaun of the Dead, then do what Shaun did goddamn it, and don't make the living dead goofy.

Thankfully, that opening misfire was ultimately the only mishandling of that sort.

Anyone that knows me, knows I am a sucker for a good opening credit sequence. Its frankly a bit of a lost art these days. Hell, opening credits in general are a lost art. Most cases you gotta keep those Hot Topic kids attention with fast fast fast! Get that title up and keep it moving people. Don't want to lose our demographic!

"For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica. Its hard edged sound serves as the backdrop to a slow motion cavalcade of people from all walks of life running from the walking dead. Its well put together, humorous in the right ways, and does a good job at setting the violent but perhaps most lighthearted end of the world I've seen.

If the end of the world could be seen as lighthearted. Some might argue.

The opening credits isn't say, Zack Snyder, and the 2004 Dawn of the Dead , set to "The Man Comes Around" ; by Johnny Cash" but what is? I accept that this isn't trying to be nearly as serious in tone, and I can deal with that.

We are then introduced to our main protagonist, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who's only moniker is "Columbus". Of which there is a reason for such, and I shall touch upon soon enough.

Columbus is a college student stuck in Texas approximately two months after the zombie plague has all but swept the country, and perhaps the world. He's a quirky loner who has survived the apocalypse through strict adherence to a set of guidelines. Be it checking the backseat of your vehicle, having no hesitation to put an extra shotgun shell in the cranium of an undead cannibal, or being wary of public bathrooms, its this obsessive compulsive behavior that has kept him alive where so many others have failed.

Columbus is on a trek to make it back to Ohio to find out whether his equally reclusive parents have survived. He's a long way from home and while on a stretch of abandoned highway, filled with empty vehicles as far as the eye can see, he comes across another survivor.

Enter Tallahassee. If there was ever someone I'd want by side when the shit hit the fan, I'd be hard pressed not to pick this man. Woody Harrelson delivers perhaps his most amusing and memorable performance since Mickey Knox in Natural Born Killers . In fact, I'd go so far to say that the characters are quite similar, except Tallahassee isn't a serial killer. Not of living people anyhow.

With his bulldozer plow equipped luxury SUV, a lever action shotgun, and a country boy charm, with special hat to boot, Tallahassee has made it his trade to kill the living dead. He's not only good at it, but he enjoys it.

He hesitantly agrees to let Columbus ride along with him, but under the condition that they don't share their real names. For Tallahassee, the less attachment, the better. The only names they'll share is the locations where they're both headed. Hence, Columbus, Ohio, and Tallahassee, Florida.

It should also be noted that Tallahassee's main goal is perhaps far less steeped in compassion. Whereas Columbus wants to know the fate of his parents and hometown, all Tallahassee wants to find is the last batch of Twinkies in the wasteland.

I shit you not. He states it clearly, contrary to popular opinion, they do have an expiration date. So why not should that be considered a lofty goal? I love Twinkies as much as the next individual. I can respect his quest.

As per usual, I will refrain from divulging any more of the plot of the film, as there are a few key elements and scenes that should be experienced firsthand, and I haven't the heart to even come close to ruining that for you.

Let it be known though, that throughout the film and its other performances, I strongly commit that Woody Harrelson is the glue that holds the film together. His performance is one of a relaxed comedic genius and what I loved about Tallahassee is that you can tell Harrelson was having a load of fun playing the character.

Most of his dialogue in the movie was adlibbed and Harrelson even went so far as to handpick each and every facet of Tallahassee's wardrobe. The coat, necklaces, and most important to him, the hat.

He's just such a fun character, one that has accepted what's happened around him, and gotten to the point of relishing what he does. He remarks at one point in the film "My mama always said I'd be good at something, I never would've guessed it'd be zombie killin'"

There's an inherent brilliance to that.

Outside of an amazing cameo, which I keep hushed about for your better enjoyment, the other characters I frankly didn't care for. Jesse Eisenberg's performance, while effective in terms of the character, seemed to come off a little too Michael Cera for me.

I fucking hate Michael Cera. If there was ever a one trick acting pony amongst young actors today, it'd be him, but I digress yet again.

The two female characters in the film, two sisters by the name of Wichita and Little Rock, also going by the "locale is your name" motif. However essential they are to the plot as you'll see, I really found them both grating and fairly annoying characters, and any screen time they had for themselves just took away from time I could be watching Woody Harrelson do what he does best.

That's just me though, and I could be wrong, but I'm not often.

So, performances aside, the directing was solid. These days it seems I don't ask for a whole lot out of a director these days if I can actually make out the geography of an action sequence. I'll downright cut a person a lot of slack if you can give me something that isn't quick cut/shaky cam bullshit in the vein of Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson.

The W.S. stands for "without shame". That's a whole other article for another time.

Also another major point of slack I can give films these days, and not just horror films, is an R-rating.

Give me an R-rating and you'll definitely have a better chance of me giving you a valid and as unbiased as possible look see.

It is with great pleasure that Zombieland does earn its R-rating. You have your usual array of headshots, and occasional well done zombie bites, but where the gore effects really shine is in impacts. What I mean is bodies hitting the ground at high speeds, car doors colliding with skulls, and most satisfying, blunt objects meeting zombie heads.

Few times are you spared a good money shot, and the sight of an aluminum baseball bat being brought down on a zombie cranium, combine that with great foley work for the sound effects.

Wonderful stuff. If it can make me cringe at just the sound, you know something is being done right.

Also, for those Romero purists out there, who love their zombies to be slow and shuffling, you may disappointed to learn that 'Zombieland's infected hordes scream and run, much in the vein of the DOTD remake or 28 Days Later .

Thus leads me to the zombie performances themselves. Some films of this ilk can have some amazing and unique undead that you remember very clearly. Zombieland falters a bit in that department, no matter how much I may be nitpicking. The makeup effects on the horde themselves never quite looked right to me, the blood looked too red on most of them, and the eyes weren't glazed enough for my liking. None of them really hooked me visually. And aside from a sinister clown zombie near the end of the film, none of them came across as memorable.

Ironically, its the first zombie movie I've seen that I've liked, and found the visual representation of the infected the least interesting part of the film. And I live for good make up effects in these types of movies.

On a side note, I recommend the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead directed by Tom Savini. Truly some of the best individual zombie performance you'll come across in any film ever.

Despite my problems and initial reservations, I can say that the film is worth seeing, and is deserving of the success its already had and then some. It has an intelligent enough sense of humor, a healthy dose of gore, and Woody Harrelson killing zombies. It wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel to begin with, but it does make for a fun ride.

Look at it this way, at least zombies haven't been bastardized in cinema in a nauseating pre-teen way that vampires have been lately.

I used to think Hell was the impossibilty of reason. Now I know its the Twilight sequel due out in November.

So there it is people. See Zombieland. Have a good time. Take your friends. And most importanly of all, enjoy the little things.