Film review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the undead spin on Jane Austen, should be more fun

Lily James, right, in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Jay Maidment / Screen Gems / Sony via AP

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Director: Burr Steers

Starring: Lily James, Matt Smith, Bella Heathcote

Two and a half stars

Pride and Prejudice and ­Zombies is as silly as it sounds, and not nearly as much fun as it should be.

In this adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith's bestselling genre mash-up of Jane Austen's classic and, well, zombies, the Bennet sisters don't just have marriage and love and class obstacles to fret about – there's also the imminent threat of the undead overtaking the land. Here, the sisters aren't merely unmarried gals looking for a suitable match – they're trained warriors who can protect their homestead. The most passionate, of course, is Elizabeth, played by Downton Abbey's Lily James.

Early on, the girls (Bella Heathcote, Ellie Bamber, Millie Brady, and Suki Waterhouse), show their blade-wielding might against the fast-moving, brain-craving predators. It’s actually pretty enjoyable, if a little manic.

But director Burr Steers’s attempts at melding these genres into one coherent film are clumsy at best. The film adheres sincerely to the beats of Austen’s story – the balls, the scheming, the misunderstandings between Lizzie and Mr Darcy (Sam Riley), the iconic scenes – while peppering most with a zombie scare or two.

There is some wit in the ­simpler moments – a stoic shot of the Bennet sisters in the living room cleaning guns in their day dresses, for example, or the few famous verbal showdowns that are choreographed as all-out fights. But that’s the best that Steers can do to integrate the two very disparate tones sincerely.

Otherwise, it feels as though we’re watching a number of movies patched together. Matt Smith and Lena Headey, in particular, seem to be acting in their own Terry Gilliam film that was kept secret from the rest of the cast.

James is the anchor of the film – as she should be – but she is really the only one with any verve or conviction at all. It makes up for a lot of the film and the story’s deficiencies, but ultimately not enough to save it. Riley’s Darcy is a ­growling bore for most of the film, and the others barely register at all.

This story might have been better suited to a television adaptation. Here, the action and violence take up the space that would have generally been used for character ­development.

That this film is rated PG-13 is a questionable decision, too, with all the skull smashing, head-chopping and gut thrashing. With its literary origins and promise of some violent female protagonists, the story seems perfect for a younger audience. But Steers and company went dark – still not enough for the horror crowds, mind you. And, save for Elizabeth, the warrior ladies really only get that one scene before letting the male soldiers take up the zombie fight.

The choice of Steers as director is perhaps the most peculiar of all. Directors can and should reach outside of their comfort zone, but to go from Igby Goes Down, 17 Again and Charlie St. Cloud to this might have been a side step too far.

The Austen scenes are fine, but the action and horror don’t land. Steers reverts to jump scares and the odd technique of blurring the shot to show a character’s panic when a zombie attacks. It’s likely meant to stress out viewers, but it’s more annoying than anything else. A simple cut would have sufficed.

The film is all over the board stylistically and tonally, and the elements of both horror and comedy fall flat. By the climax, you’ve almost forgotten what you’re watching and who you’re supposed to care about.

For now, it seems only Edgar Wright has really conquered the modern genre mash-up. But that’s an unfair standard for any mortal, or undead, to live up to.

*AP