Review of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) by Joshua S — 12 Feb 2016

Jane Austen is probably one of the most fetishized authors ever, particularly among 20 and 30 something white females, for semi-obvious reasons. So why have her works remained popular two centuries later? My best friend is a Jane Austen aficionado (not obsessive) and therefore I would leave him to render final judgement on that question. But I suspect it's because the characters are realistically self-absorbed and disgusting, albeit in a quirky manner, and the situations and interpersonal relationships are seemingly familiar to many of us. So this brings us to this business of Pride + Prejudice + Zombies, a long plagued production based upon a high concept pop novel turned viral. It is exactly as it sounds - the original story of landed English gentry and changing fortunes of marriage proposals and familial legacies, now smack dab in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, with most characters actively engaged with repulsing it. So yes, we get to see women in Regency era dresses use swords, muskets, and mixed martial arts to slay the undead, then discuss their marital prospects, while giggling. And that's the shtick, really.

You have to admire that for most of Zombies, it follows the general beats of the classic novel to the handwritten letter. Entire passages of dialogue are taken from the original text and moments are indistinguishable from a BBC adaptation of the same material. Lily James and Sam Riley give bravura performances (in between stunt choreography sequences) that I fear will be overlooked. And yes Whovians, Matt Smith is fun and awkward as you can imagine. Pride + Prejudice + Zombies does best when it's finding new and interesting ways to reimagine scenes from the original novel. It stumbles in the third act when it has to invent its own absurd story - thus resulting in conventional action shlock. Worse still, it makes the unforgiveable mistake of trying to set up a sequel that isn't happening. In summation, it's more successful as an entertaining movie than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (another film from the same author), but it lacks its teeth or insight. The audience for this kind of venture is always limited, as action fans will avoid anything to do with Jane Austen, while devotees of her work probably turn their noses at such a concept. I am left to wonder had Natalie Portman stayed on with the project in the lead role it may have gotten better business. I suppose we will never know.