‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’ Review: Half-dead irreverence

It is most unfortunate that Lily James and Sam Riley are in the wrong adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. James and Riley, who play Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy respectively, are convincing leads who lend their characters both the levity and seriousness required to flesh out the themes present in Austen’s mannered romance.

Sadly, in Burr Steers’ Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, they also need to brandish swords and fight a horde of zombies who are on their way to invade 19th century England. It adds a needless silliness to the sweeping love story that by itself is already vastly entertaining. What starts out as an intriguing gimmick eventually fizzles and turns into a frustrating distraction to James and Riley’s very earnest swooning. (WATCH: Awesome Bennet sisters in ‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’ trailer) 

Adaptation of a parody

The movie, which is adapted from Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel that made full use of the entry of Austen’s novel in the public domain, mostly retains the structure of the original romance, but irreverently places it within a speculative setting where England is struggling with a plague that turns its gentlefolk into brain-hungry zombies.

So Elizabeth Bennet is still the second-best daughter of an estate-owning family who desperately hungers for titled husbands for their daughters. Mr. Darcy remains to be the snobbish friend of wealthy bachelor Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth), who becomes enchanted with the prettiest Bennet, Jane (Bella Heathcote). Elizabeth and Darcy fight and argue, eventually giving way to romantic attraction, which is hindered by further complications that are but part and parcel of a society that prioritizes class structures over feelings.

 

The introduction of the zombie element forces the narrative to turn the characters from mere gentlefolk into warriors whose source of war training is telling of their wealth and breeding. The upper crust are brought to Japan to master the ways of the samurai. The rest get their training from China. As you can see, there are some ideas that fall squarely within Austen’s exploration of the class divide. The mash-up is interesting, sure, but eventually, it’s all rather empty. Austen’s tale simply doesn’t need the ridiculous and reckless padding. 

Unsustainable comedy

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies lacks the maturity to make most of the irreverence, resulting in unsustainable comedy.

The joke is played well at first, and James, Riley, and most of the film’s cast are able to be stoic despite the absurdity. It is their performances that manage to graduate the film beyond being a lampoon, an overlong skit that exploits classic literature for immature entertainment. However, there isn’t really anything more to the gimmick than the initial wonderment. Once that wears off, the film slogs slower than an incapacitated ghoul.

Steers, whose filmography includes coming-of-age Igby Goes Down (2002), teen romp 17 Again (2009) and indulgent weeper Charlie St. Cloud (2010), is ill-equipped to merge the cheeky horror with Austen’s costume drama.

Worse, he fumbles when directing action, with fight scenes shot and edited so haphazardly that they are rendered gravely incomprehensible. All the elements that Grahame-Smith’s book attempts to marry together to result in what he assumes is current entertainment are left unglued. The fissures between the genres Steers seeks to join together are so wide, it’s bothersome.

Confused effort

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a film whose parts are infinitely better than the whole.

There are gems within the film. The Bennet sisters violently practicing their battling skills while fawning over men earns a few chuckles, but this stunt is quickly abandoned for narrative convenience. An argument between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy that is predictably done over kicks and punches, leading to some sexual innuendos, is a bright idea that is ultimately blocked by an affinity for good taste.

See, the biggest problem of the film is that there is a gross hesitation to push the envelope, to be truly insane and impertinent about the disrespectful re-imagining of Austen’s novel.

Steers is too stuck in between the warring affinities of the product. He does not know if he needs to create something comedic, dramatic, or suspenseful. What he’s left is this confused effort that is only entertaining when the novelty is fresh. – Rappler.com

 

Francis Joseph Cruz litigates for a living and writes about cinema for fun. The first Filipino movie he saw in the theaters was Carlo J. Caparas’ Tirad Pass. Since then, he’s been on a mission to find better memories with Philippine cinema. Profile photo by Fatcat Studios