A movie that indicates what's wrong with Hollywood.

A movie that indicates what's "Transformers" with Hollywood.... isnt Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

'No big stars'

Matt Smith, Charles Dance and Lena Headey? All of whom have been seen by millons around the world on television? No, you're right. They aren't hollywood stars. Hollywood stars can't act.

I liked it.

Of course, I also liked the book. Both books in fact; Grahame's and Austen's.

I think it could have gone a little farther into the cheek with the tongue.

Not sure I cared for some of the changes.

I thought the casting and production values were good.

There are a lot of people familiar with JANE Austen's Pride and Prejudice. They used quite a bit of original source material and also original material modified for the plot twists. I.E. the opening lines modified to refer to zombies.

And it isn't Victorian. That would be the reign of Queen Victoria. Late 1800s.

It is Regency. That would be the Prince Regent. Beginning of the 1800s.

That said, I'm not sure you know enough to be passing judgement on Hollywood or diagnosing the ills of the current film industry.

My personal feeling is, can't we do better in films than sourcing material from comic books, video games and vintage TV shows? At least this movie can eventually trace it's source material to one of the greatest novels in English literature.

Ooh, so much to say, and so little space to say it. Oh, well. I'll ramble on anyway.

I agree with your assertion that P+P+Z stars a bunch of unknown actors, but then you named a handful of allegedly unsuccessful actors who are actually doing pretty well for themselves. Chris Hemsworth is universally adored. He's had two non-Marvel projects that bombed ("In the Heart of the Sea" and "Blackhat") and at least two non-Marvel projects that performed well at the box office ("Rush" and "Snow White and the Huntsman"). Your rush to judgment on him seems premature. Additionally, Mia Wasikowska, the girl from "Alice in Wonderland" whose name you don't remember, has made a slew of successful movies since her breakout role in "Alice," including critic favorites "Lawless," "Jane Eyre," and "Stoker." I just saw her a few months ago in "Crimson Peak," a film co-starring Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston, which received a wide release. I'm not much of a Henry Cavill fan and I do agree that he seems pigeonholed to Superman right now, but he really doesn't do many projects so it also seems unfair to judge him right now- after all, "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." co-starred Armie Hammer, who as far as I'm concerned is box office poison. Cavill isn't responsible for that.

I agree the horror/drama/romance mash-up did not work well, but that was due to poor directing, not that "the movie doesn't know its audience." This movie is based on a book that was an international bestseller. The movie doesn't have to find an audience. One already existed. They just had to adapt it faithfully- which they failed at, but I'll get to that later. A horror movie does not need to be rated R to be commercially successful. See: 1982's "Poltergeist" (PG-13, grossed more than 10x its budget), 2002's "The Ring" (grossed $250mil on a $50mil budget), and the first two "Insidious" films (both PG-13, grossed a combined $250mil on a budget of $5 mil each). I can say that they were definitively NOT trying to reach a young male audience with this one. Hello, it's Pride and Prejudice.

If the average movie-goer isn't familiar with Jane Austen, then why have there been more than 50 movie and television adaptations of her 6 novels since the 1930s? These adaptations include the ragingly successful 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that catapulted Colin Firth to stardom, the 2005 film adaptation starring Keira Knightley that earned more than 5x its budget back at the box office, and even fan fiction type spin-offs like "Lost in Austen" and "Bridget Jones' Diary."

I am genuinely curious as to why you think the female leads should not be conservatively dressed. The movie is set in the 1800s. Having the women running around in hot pants and tank tops would be weird, IMO.

I'm not sure if you've heard of "AU," or "alternate universe," storytelling, but that's what Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is. It's a re-telling of a story that would have happened IF something crucial had been changed in the past. In this case, a zombie virus spread and so English families sent their children to either Japan or China to train in hand-to-hand combat and weapons tactics. Nothing "inexplicable" about it. It's a fantastical premise for a fantastical horror-comedy. I personally like fantastical films like the Marvel movies, The Matrix, and anything by Miyazaki, so I thought mashing zombies with Jane Austen was actually quite brilliant and funny.

I will tell you why I believe P+P+Z failed at the box office. A few reasons:

They took too long to release the movie. I bought the book in 2009 and have waited 7 years for this film. Way too long. Zombies are no longer the crowd-pulling trend they once were.

You were right about the casting. They needed some bigger-name actors for this film. Lily James was actually good as Elizabeth Bennet, but they should have gotten a name actor for Darcy who actually fit the part. Sam Riley was woefully miscast. (Now that you mention it, Henry Cavill might have been a better alternative, but the fact that I'm saying Henry Cavill would have been better should alert you to how awful Sam Riley was.)

You were also right about the director, but Burr Steers was pretty much the last choice for director. They went through five or six directors before landing him. I think he did a horrible job. The movie dragged, the plot was weak, and the mash-up of horror and period drama was anything but seamless. But I don't know how much more I can expect from the director of "Igby Goes Down," which I didn't like either.

The final (and probably most prominent) reason that P+P+Z failed is that they changed the entire third act. They wanted an action film, but P+P+Z, the book, was literally Pride and Prejudice...with zombies. Nothing was changed from the original Pride and Prejudice story to the novel P+P+Z except for the addition of the zombies. The movie was COMPLETELY different from the book. The disrespect that these producers had for the source material was off-putting to Jane Austen fans.

This is actually the only film I've been excited about in at least a decade.

I enter these threads expecting to see a post revolving around "it sucked blah blah blah". The second point RE ratings is so valid though, at least to me. People can list cases of PG Horror movies that worked. But they are few and far between. A horror movie rarely benefits from a PG rating.

Sorry but I liked it and the whole concept 😃. Jane Austen and zombies haha! Loved this alternate world where they retold the story with zombies in the mix, a bit of horror and edge in a period piece. I was actually surprised that it really was Pride & Prejudice with the same characters from the book only now they had this mortal threat hanging over them every day and night and they were all warriors as a consequence. Cool movie, seriously!

I get maybe why most guys wouldn't like this because of the early 19th century time period and I don't think it was really marketed to them as the primary audience but I would think anyone who's familiar with Jane Austen would get a kick out of this (lol literally) and the crazy crossover genre. I don't see how it could ever have been expected to be a highly grossing film either but it should gain popularity as time goes on making its money back. I would hope anyway.

Hollywood should try more innovative experiments like this instead of churning out more of the same ad nauseam, even if that means some will fall flat. Sometimes people just don't know what they like until you show it to them and god knows things have been getting stagnant in the creative department. Did we really need a Spiderman reboot, and yet another? PPZ is a step in the right direction and it's unfortunate it didn't do better at the box office but kudos to those who tried and gave us some interesting brain stuff to chew on! 😉


🐬 ma ink

You haven't seen the film, so you're ridiculous rant is meaningless.