Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) ★★
There is something to be said for any film that takes risks. And in a sense, every film production takes some risk, by virtue of being a project without guaranteed commercial success. Investors put millions into the production, distribution, and marketing of an artistic endeavor that could be a complete box office flop. But sometimes the filmmakers reach too far and take too many stylistic and narrative risks. Such is the case with Burr Steers’ historical comedy-horror, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016). Based on Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel of the same name, the film attempts to answer the question: what if Jane Austen’s famous love story took place in the middle of a zombie epidemic?
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies follows the same plot as the original Pride and Prejudice novel, to a point. The film focuses on the Bennet family and the many love entanglements of the daughters. The central romantic storyline belongs to Elizabeth Bennet and Colonel Darcy. However, the story drops the characters into a version of London under threat of invasion by a zombie horde. The film actually opens with a very impressive sequence using painted cut-outs to introduce the zombie premise (pictured below).
What Is the Theme of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
The citizenry has built huge walls and canals around the city and only recently have the upper class ventured out to their fortified country estates. All of the Bennet women trained in Asian martial arts. Although, in practice, very little of the combat looks like anything other than standard action movie swordplay. Much of the “comedy” in the film arises from seeing proper, 19th century Englishwomen eviscerating the undead, even as certain male characters, namely the foppish Parson Collins (played by Matt Smith), cower in fear.
But, unfortunately for the investors, average filmgoers and niche-fan fiction enthusiasts are two completely different kinds of audiences. When the production companies pumped $28 million into this project, they tried to market the film in a way that would appeal to the masses. Instead, they should have focused on the small subset of fans who enjoy this kind of revisionist, over-the-top fiction. Sure, the novel made it on the New York Times bestseller list and probably sold thousands and thousands of copies, but the filmmakers needed to convince millions of people to pay money to see their movie. Beyond the die-hard fans of the book, few people would appreciate the outlandish premise.
The central problem with this film is that the two main ingredients, Jane Austen and Zombies, simply do not fit together very well. Now, to be sure, it is certainly an original idea. To put the prim and proper culture of Jane Austen’s world with the blood and brutality of a zombie apocalypse sounds like a recipe for entertainment. However, when watching the film, one constantly wonders for whom it was intended. The filmmakers seem to hope that the film will be great because the two central elements don’t fit together on paper, but this strategy backfires.
Jane Austen and Zombies: A Subpar Attempt to Cross Genres
Jane Austen fans will surely dismiss it as a ridiculous and silly bastardization of her work. Alternatively, die-hard zombie fans will likely feel turned off by the romanticism and slow-moving love story. I have not read Graham-Smith’s novel, but I imagine that it works far better in print than on film. The problem is that this film cannot decide what it wants to be. Is it a fast-paced, gory zombie film, or a slow, period romance? Having watched the film, it is difficult, maybe impossible, to be both simultaneously.
Visually, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is surprisingly well shot and dedicated to the details of the time period. The costumes, sets, and even understated lighting all take from the 2005 film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. However, when the zombies come into play, the cracks begin to show. While the filmmakers did not shy away from showing blood and gore, the visual effects don’t always impress. Many of the decaying zombies look lackluster at best, especially considering the film’s robust budget. Nonetheless, the combat scenes offer intermittent thrills in an otherwise boring film.
Besides its commercial failure, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies fails to entertain in the ways that it should. When you have a film with an outlandish or ridiculous premise (along the lines of David R. Ellis’ Snakes on a Plane or Don Coscarelli’s Bubba Ho-Tep), the filmmakers have lean into it. They must produce and market the film in a way that puts the ridiculousness at the forefront. Audiences will come out in droves to see an over-the-top film doesn’t take itself too seriously. However, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies never really strikes that balance.
Final Thoughts
While the zombie aspects of the film do feel somewhat ridiculous and sensationalized (as they should), the filmmakers want us to take the love story much too seriously. These two incongruous tones leave the film searching for an identity. With a runtime of 108 minutes, it feels overly long. To make matters worse, the filmmakers dedicate much of the narrative to romance, which is probably not what would have attracted audiences to the film in the first place. I doubt that most people walked into the movie theater thinking, I can’t wait to see a beautiful Jane Austen love story. It’s much more likely that they thought, I can’t wait to see a ridiculous, over-the-top zombie movie set in Regency-era England. People in the latter group will surely be disappointed.
If you are one of the few people who love Jane Austen and zombies, this film might appeal to you. However, for most people, it is simply a boring, mediocre adaptation with a few thousand undead thrown in.
Rating: ★★ out of 5
If you’d like to watch Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016), it is currently available to purchase via Amazon here. For more film reviews like this one, check out the Philosophy in Film Homepage!
