Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Feb. 7th, 2016 05:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitter_n_gore"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
So begins the second adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith's collection of monsterifications of period pieces. The first, of course, was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which ironically was actually written after Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and more an original alternate history type thing than a retelling of an existing work of literature. But today, I'm talking about the movie.
Via Giphy
Now, I was extremely skeptical when I first heard this was happening. I had no interest in the book, or any of the copy-cat retellings that followed, such as Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, but . . . I don't know, somehow the trailer started to pique my interest. After the fourth or fifth time I watched it, and started to do a headcount of how many cool genre actors were a part of it--Charles Dance! Matt Smith! Lena Headey!--I decided I couldn't miss this one.
It didn't disappoint.
First, you should know that this premise is utterly impossible to take seriously. Not only do we have a zombie apocalypse in a Regency setting, but we are still following all the same beats and plot points of Jane Austen's comedy of manners. I'd say check your intellect at the door, but honestly having at least a passing familiarity with Austen's work will make the story easier to follow. Mrs. Bennett is still set on marrying off her daughters to the best possible prospects she can find; Mr. Collins (played to hilarious perfection by Matt Smith) is still intent on awkwardly, enthusiastically claiming the Bennett sister of his choice; Bingley and Jane are still making adorable puppy-dog eyes at each other across the ballroom in the very first party at Netherfield; and George Wickham is still a skin-crawlingly charming jerk.
And the actors involved here did a remarkable job of handling their characters in this setting, despite how ridiculous it is. I liked Lily James as Lizzie a lot (although my heart still belongs to Keira Knightley on that front), and the fact that she's had combat training in addition to her other "accomplishments" gives her a chance to bond with and admire Darcy over something more than their sharp wits. Sam Riley as Darcy, on the other hand, was my FAVORITE. I had my doubts about him just watching the trailers, based solely on the fact that he's so young. Well shame on me, because he carried himself perfectly in this role. He's gruff, stiff, and formal, from the way he moves through a scene to the way he talks, and this time he has a tangible reason for being so antisocial: he's the best zombie-killer in the British army, and has distanced himself from humanity on purpose so he won't hesitate to kill in combat. It's a stretch, yeah, but it works.
There are other revisions to the original story that work bizarrely well in this setting, such as Jane's extended illness at Netherfield. Is she just under the weather from riding all that way in the rain, or has she been bitten? As for George Wickham, does his long-stanging grudge against Darcy begin and end with a question of inheritance, or is there something more sinister behind his motives? Even Lady Catherine de Bourgh, played by Lena Headey, gets a badass upgrade, now not just a benefactress, but an eye-patch-wearing survivalist who takes her combat skills--and her wealth--very seriously.
That said, it definitely falls apart in some places. I could do without the male-gazey scene of the Bennett sisters getting ready for the ball, strapping daggers to their lacy undergarments and such. I also would've liked to see more of Charlotte Lucas and Caroline Bingley, who are introduced as if their roles are going to be prominent here as they were in the book, but then get dropped from the plot without explanation. Also, even though I know that this is a fictional universe in which Regency England is aware of and has accepted the existence of zombies, I can't quite suspend my disbelief enough to roll with it when the girls start talking about how good-looking/wealthy/whatever one of the gentlemen is while heads are literally rolling. I mean, come on. I know it's supposed to be stupid, but there's a line.
So when I say this movie "didn't disappoint," I don't necessarily mean it's "good." It's not high art or anything. It's a decent enough popcorn flick, and every bit as brainless and frothy as you'd expect. But it's fun, and weirdly endearing. If that sounds like your flavor of cheese--and it certainly is mine--then go ahead and give it a chance.
So begins the second adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith's collection of monsterifications of period pieces. The first, of course, was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which ironically was actually written after Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and more an original alternate history type thing than a retelling of an existing work of literature. But today, I'm talking about the movie.
Via Giphy
Now, I was extremely skeptical when I first heard this was happening. I had no interest in the book, or any of the copy-cat retellings that followed, such as Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, but . . . I don't know, somehow the trailer started to pique my interest. After the fourth or fifth time I watched it, and started to do a headcount of how many cool genre actors were a part of it--Charles Dance! Matt Smith! Lena Headey!--I decided I couldn't miss this one.
It didn't disappoint.
First, you should know that this premise is utterly impossible to take seriously. Not only do we have a zombie apocalypse in a Regency setting, but we are still following all the same beats and plot points of Jane Austen's comedy of manners. I'd say check your intellect at the door, but honestly having at least a passing familiarity with Austen's work will make the story easier to follow. Mrs. Bennett is still set on marrying off her daughters to the best possible prospects she can find; Mr. Collins (played to hilarious perfection by Matt Smith) is still intent on awkwardly, enthusiastically claiming the Bennett sister of his choice; Bingley and Jane are still making adorable puppy-dog eyes at each other across the ballroom in the very first party at Netherfield; and George Wickham is still a skin-crawlingly charming jerk.
And the actors involved here did a remarkable job of handling their characters in this setting, despite how ridiculous it is. I liked Lily James as Lizzie a lot (although my heart still belongs to Keira Knightley on that front), and the fact that she's had combat training in addition to her other "accomplishments" gives her a chance to bond with and admire Darcy over something more than their sharp wits. Sam Riley as Darcy, on the other hand, was my FAVORITE. I had my doubts about him just watching the trailers, based solely on the fact that he's so young. Well shame on me, because he carried himself perfectly in this role. He's gruff, stiff, and formal, from the way he moves through a scene to the way he talks, and this time he has a tangible reason for being so antisocial: he's the best zombie-killer in the British army, and has distanced himself from humanity on purpose so he won't hesitate to kill in combat. It's a stretch, yeah, but it works.
There are other revisions to the original story that work bizarrely well in this setting, such as Jane's extended illness at Netherfield. Is she just under the weather from riding all that way in the rain, or has she been bitten? As for George Wickham, does his long-stanging grudge against Darcy begin and end with a question of inheritance, or is there something more sinister behind his motives? Even Lady Catherine de Bourgh, played by Lena Headey, gets a badass upgrade, now not just a benefactress, but an eye-patch-wearing survivalist who takes her combat skills--and her wealth--very seriously.
That said, it definitely falls apart in some places. I could do without the male-gazey scene of the Bennett sisters getting ready for the ball, strapping daggers to their lacy undergarments and such. I also would've liked to see more of Charlotte Lucas and Caroline Bingley, who are introduced as if their roles are going to be prominent here as they were in the book, but then get dropped from the plot without explanation. Also, even though I know that this is a fictional universe in which Regency England is aware of and has accepted the existence of zombies, I can't quite suspend my disbelief enough to roll with it when the girls start talking about how good-looking/wealthy/whatever one of the gentlemen is while heads are literally rolling. I mean, come on. I know it's supposed to be stupid, but there's a line.
So when I say this movie "didn't disappoint," I don't necessarily mean it's "good." It's not high art or anything. It's a decent enough popcorn flick, and every bit as brainless and frothy as you'd expect. But it's fun, and weirdly endearing. If that sounds like your flavor of cheese--and it certainly is mine--then go ahead and give it a chance.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-08 04:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-09 02:01 am (UTC)