Movie Analysis: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

What is about zombies that continues to fascinate us? They don’t have a motivation like a vampire, and even if they’re driven by impulse they’re not agile like a Werewolf. They’re not articulate enemies, so they can’t really monologue before you kill them. They don’t have motivation. They just… are. One isn’t even particularly scary. Even on the Walking Dead we’ve gotten to the point where one or two is a nuisance. 

But they persist. We see them on TV in at least three TV shows, one where a zombie is working as a medical examiner and has the superpower to solve crimes by eating their brains. There’s the zany antics of Z-Nation which most recently killed a bunch of zombies with a block of cheese. And there’s the aforementioned The Walking Dead where the main theme seems to be bad decisions, sweat, not saying the word “zombie”, and trying to make parts of George look like the area around Washington, D.C. (Pro tip, there would be a lot more cars. Like… a lot.) We’ve seen them reinvented, Twilighted (Thanks, Warm Bodies for our requisite Romantic Zombie), hunted by Abraham Lincoln, parodies, and they’ll continue to remake Dawn of the Dead until sometime after the actual zombie apocalypse, in which case it will be a documentary.

Of course, all of this leads up to the most recent zombie film (Which I hope I can say since it came out on Friday, and there very well could have been seven more released between now and then) Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

That’s right. We don’t just have zombies. We have literary zombies!

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is pretty much all in the title. It’s Jane Austen’s classic tale, but with more zombies added in for good measure.

Ok, it’s more complicated than that.

It’s the tale of Lizzy Bennet and her sisters, all of whom her mother wishes to have married off at some point because back in that day apparently women were only good for marriage. Oh, and in this case, zombie slaying, because the movie is set in a world where zombie hoards are constantly attacking various places in England, and much of the culture has been changed to reflect that. For instance, Mr. Darcy, the eventual love of Lizzy (spoilers… I guess….) is now Col. Darcy, one of the generals in the war against zombies. He is called “Mr. Darcy” by Lizzy’s constant refusal to acknowledge him in his military rank. The girls are trained in the art of killing zombies, with some interesting moments I’ll mention when I get to the analysis. But the story is the same: Lizzy and her sisters lives are shaken up by the arrival of Col… um, Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley. Jane falls for Bingley, they leave, Pastor Collins shows up, tries to marry one of his cousins, Darcy sends his letter. There’s the evil Wickham who is made less of a jerk and more of mustache twirling villain in this particular version. All of this in the backdrop that an minute a hoard of zombies will burst through the gates, destroying them all. 

And that’s what works about the movie. The movie itself is essentially “Pride and Prejudice”. There’s no post apocalyptic vibe to the movie. Lizzy and her family still lives on a lavish estate, and the zombies are more of a nuisance rather than a major threat for most of the movie. The love story: Lizzy, believing she doesn’t need love vs. Darcy, who is too shy to admit he is in love, plays out as usual, with the occasional break in the action for… well, zombie action.

What works about this movie is the world they created, one that honors the original book’s satirical look at aristocracy but adds in this additional threat level. I’d argue that the movie actually takes it to a different level. Early on, it’s mentioned that these aristocrats actually train and are expected to be able to fight off zombies on their own - no damseling for these ladies who, in the original book and this, are essentially hunting for husbands as well as zombie flesh. (They should have let me write the tagline.) But the movie goes a step further, the really rich are trained in special schools in Japan, while rich but not as rich as the others train in China. Lizzy and her family trains in China, and this becomes an actual plot point later, as Lizzy is mocked for her “poor” training, despite the fact that she and her sisters are seen mowing down a hoard of zombies early on.

Another note before I get back to the analysis, this is another part of the idea of zombies that fascinates me: the idea that one isn’t scary (as mentioned before) but a hoard of them is terrifying. But rather than having our methods of taking care of them: The most recent Walking Dead features a gentleman picking up a rocket launcher that better come into play pretty soon, here we have zombies attacking when weapons involved 20 minutes of reloading. That adds another level of terror, quite frankly, as they can’t just jump in their cars and run away. Being thrown off a horse spooked by a zombie is a major point for Jane. (Who does manage to kill the zombie.)

There’s even this level of aristocracy among the zombies as (spoiler again) there is introduced a level of aristocratic zombie, that being those bitten but those who haven’t consumed their first set of brains, so they decay, but they retain some humanity. So, essentially what is crafted is a movie that adds zombies to a classic, but retains much of what Jane Austen set to do in her satiric take on aristocracy and love: make fun of the hell out of it. What’s lost is that this is a largely satiric book to begin with, with most of the characters being parodies of what Jane Austen was observing at the time. This movie heightens that. 

The most pivotal scene to me, is the scene in the ball where Mrs. Bennet is discussing her joy at having Mr. Bingley show interest in Jane. This is the scene that ends up driving Mr. Darcy to tell Bingley to run away from this mess of a family. But during this scene Lizzy tries to stop her mother from talking in this way, and she playfully bites her. The filmmakers here are linking the two satires: in the biting of her daughter she is showing her one track mind of getting them married off, while linking to the humor of having zombies, and their one track mind for consuming flesh, now involved in this revered book. 

I will admit that it falls apart a little bit in the final act as it becomes a standard “rescue” story. Wickham still steals Lydia (essentially) and Darcy makes some questionable decisions under a forced timeline (Will Lizzy and Darcy make it to the bridge before it’s destroyed? Yes. Yes tehy will.) and it’s a little bit of a shame that it loses the brilliance introduced in the first two acts of the film to be a standard zombie film with the faceless hoards now descending upon our heroes. But its a small price to pay to see Matt Smith as Pastor Collins, marrying off the woman for whom he’d been pining for a large portion of the film. 

I do recommend this movie, yes, even for Austen Purists. It’s a fascinating look at Austen and the world she creates through the lens of the undead. 

Summer Movie Season: Mad Max: Fury Road Review

First a note: I’m very aware of the manufactured controversy surrounding the movie Mad Max: Fury Road, and the people that don’t want to see it for whatever reason. I don’t care; I go to the movies to escape my problems for two hours, not to pretend to get offended at things don’t exist. So... this is a review of my experience. If you believe that there was something inherently offensive snuck into a post-apocalyptic movie that featured an eyeless guy playing a flaming electric guitar, please understand that none of this is real. Thanks.

I went into Mad Max: Fury Road with pretty low expectations. Not that I didn’t hear it was the Greatest Action Movie ever (tm), but any time a movie is a remake of something that was last popular back when Mel Gibson wasn’t crazy; you’re going to be a little skeptical. I’m also going into Jurassic World with the same caution despite my natural love for all things Chris Pratt mixed with Dinosaurs.

Turns out I didn’t need to be THAT concerned. This movie blew away my every expectation. All of them. This was one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. (A little behind Kingsman, that one still stands up as the best.)

The movie takes place after a global apocalypse, the cause of which is never really explained but there’s a lot of deserts and not a lot of water. Max, a former police officer haunted by his past, is just trying to survive and keep his head down in the new Environment. Our first images of him are standing next to his extremely modified car, killing a mutated lizard for a morning snack, looking out at the desert pretty much set the mood for the rest of the movie: he’s a man torn between doing the right thing and wanting to survive. He’s quickly attacked and captured by Immortan Joe, the tyrannical leader of a nearby settlement who keeps people in line by controlling the water supply. He’s quickly marked as a Universal Blood Donor, and he’s used as a “blood bag” for a young War Boy named Nux. The real plot is set in motion when one of Joe’s lieutenants, Furiousa (played by Charlize Theron, proving she’s probably one of the best actresses on this planet... Captain Marvel, anyone?) is sent to get gas and bullets. She goes off course and it’s discovered that she’s “liberated” Joe’s Five Wives, the five women he’s specially selected for breeding and all the ickiness that entails.

Obviously, Hijinks ensue. 

What follows is basically a long car chase movie as Joe ramps up his heavily armed and stylized army of “War Boys” who fanatically follow him with a religious fervor. This includes the aforementioned flaming electric guitarist, which might seem excessive in other movies, but fits in quite nicely in this one. 

As I said, I really liked this movie. After last week’s disappointing Hot Pursuit, it was nice to get back into the Summer Movie Season fold with a stylized action movie that focused on things like practical effects enhanced only slightly with CGI as opposed the latest version of look at what this computer can make us do. I’m not completely knocking CGI, but for every Hulkbuster or Ultron or even Caesar, it’s brought us a Jar Jar Binks or wondering just who we are supposed to be rooting for at the end of the latest Transformers debacle, or even a fully CGI Kevin James taking the fall at the end of Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. (There have been two Paul Blarts, but still only the one Serenity. Wrap your brains around that, people.) But the movie is clear when in the beginning Max steps on the CGI lizard then hops into his very real car.

The use of practical effects is what elevates this movie to one of the better action films I’ve seen in a while. The title of “best” action film still probably falls to Shoot-em Up, a parody of action films but understands what this movie does, that action needs to be incorporated into a movie to help tell a story, not as part of a way to stall things going forward so we can see boom boom more explosions and action. When Max, early on in the movie, is tied to the front of a car in order to provide blood to Nux, it’s more than just a chance to get the star into the action, it’s showing the religious fervor, it’s to show that the violence here is going to be something happening to the main characters instead of caused by the main character, and it adds an extra element of danger to the piece. 

Speaking of Nux, I think it’s important to highlight this particular character. A lot of thinkpieces about the peace highlight the film’s practical effects (as I just did) or the use of women  but they ignore this important character. When he meet him he’s hurt and needs blood from the main character, and is so willing to sacrifice himself to Joe that he repeatedly puts himself in danger. There’s a great moment that sort of bookends his story where he sees Joe twice. The first time Joe turns his head to look at Nux, and the young boy is elated with the idea that he’s being noticed. The second time Nux has already come to his epiphany that perhaps Joe is not the great man he originally thought. His character arc is probably the most compelling moment in the movie, going from brainwashed War Boy to willing to die for another cause, to save these women. His evolution is important, and the movie is just as much about him as it is about Max and Furiosa. 

The other standout is Charlize Theron as Furiosa, who decides it’s time to save these women and deals with her own crisis of faith, trying to get them to “the Green Place” where she had been taken from as a child. She conveys a lot with her screen time, and brings a lot to her action sequences, which once again tell a story. The first time she fights Max she is clearly trying to establish dominance, but at the same time she’s clearly fighting for a cause, and that makes her a lot more fierce in her quest. Basically this is a movie about faith, and the varying degrees in which we may have to change that faith when we open the world around us. 

Like I said, enjoyed this movie. It pulls together a lot of elements to tell a real story and crafts a movie into something amazing. Give it a shot, even if you aren’t a traditional Mad Max fan. 

Nine out of Ten. 

Inept Cops. Fake Deaths. Deceit. Plotting. Hilarity Ensues in Much Ado About Nothing!

It may come as a shock to everyone, but I don’t think we should force kids to read Shakespeare. I don’t think we should make anyone read Shakespeare. Mainly because Shakespeare didn’t write things that were meant to be read, he wrote things that were meant to be performed. I think everyone should have to study Shakespeare, and I think everyone should watch one of his plays be performed. Joss Whedon succeeds in putting together a Much Ado About Nothing that’s not just funny, but also easily accessible, and should be watched by all.

Sorry, kids, I did my best for you there.

Movie versions of Shakespeare plays are difficult. Do you go for the classic Elizabethan style? Do you update it and force some of the language have to be updated? Do you set it in a mushroom kingdom and do a parody of Super Mario Brothers? (Movie idea: The Merry Wives of the Mario Brothers.) Setting it modern day, keeping most of the language, and putting it all in black and white really translated well. Granted, if you’re going to set something in modern day, this is the play to do it. (That and Macbeth. Let’s face it, witches and beheadings never really go out of style.)

Much Ado About Nothing is the natural fit for Joss Whedon’s style. Had Joss Whedon been born back in Shakespeare times, he’d probably be a small, unsuccessful landowner who wrote something similar to Much Ado About Nothing, then was later re-written by William Shakespeare. The rapid jokes, the sniping, the battle of the sexes... all part of Joss Whedon’s work. It’s what makes him Joss Whedon. 

I’ve always liked Much Ado About Nothing. To me it really plays like a parody of William Shakespeare’s works. The stakes are pretty low. (Will Beatrice and Benedick get married? Will Hero and Claudio work through their problems?) There’s some plotting, but all the plotting is to get people to fall in love. The bad guy isn’t really a bad guy as he is a devious, scheming guy with no real motivation other than, “Hey... I’m going to mess with all these people in a horrible, horrible way.” And the whole thing takes place post-war, so while it’s briefly mentioned, it’s not really hanging over the proceedings. No, this is a bright, breezy affair. This is crowd pleasin’, Rom-Com Shakespeare.  Basically, it’s what Hamlet would have been if it was intentionally funny. 

Side note: Hamlet is probably other good fit for Joss Whedon, because there’s a ghost and everyone dies. In fact, two of the funniest characters are killed off screen. A young Joss probably watched that and said, “I’m going to make everyone fall in love with a guest star, put her in the credits, then kill her and never show her ever, ever again. (You were Willow’s real love, Tara.)

Oh, you probably want to know about the plot. Don Pedro, Claudio, Benedick and his ne’er do well (I can say that... Shakespeare) bastard brother Don John, end up at Leonato’s house to spend the month. In that time, Claudio falls in love with Hero and decide to get married, and Don Pedro decides to spend the week scheming to get Benedick and Beatrice together. Don John gets his men together to besmirch Hero’s name and cause general mayhem. 

If it’s not obvious by now (and the preview I wrote a few weeks ago) I loved this movie. Yes, I was a bit pre-disposed to absolutely love it... It’s one of my favorite modern writer/directors taking on one of my favorite old-timey writer/directors, and I absolutely love all the actors involved in making this. So at this point it was really Joss Whedon and the actor’s game to lose. And they didn’t. I loved it. I loved every last second of watching this movie.

The actors seemed at home performing this play. Amy Acker did a great job as Beatrice, and had great will they or won’t they chemistry with Alexis Denisof as her Benedick. (Like a Sam and Diane. Or Ross and Rachel. Or Jim and Pam. Or... you know, that’s how far forward my pop culture goes. If you don’t understand those, kids as your parents.) Fran Kranz (Who played Claudio and we can pretend that we’re not going to call him “Topher”) did a great job as an insecure young soldier. I loved Clark “Agent Coulson” Gregg as Leonato... dude melted into the role. Really, I had to throw in a joke about Agent Coulson, but about two minutes after he opened his mouth, I felt bad for saying “Agent Coulson lives!” when he walked on the screen, because he inhabited the role.

The big standout for me was that of Nathan Fillion in the role of Dogberry. Even though this is a smaller part, it’s one of the more important parts in Shakespeare, period. Remember how earlier I mentioned that this plays out as a parody of a Shakespeare play? Dogberry is this play’s fool. Normally, Shakespeare liked to make his fools the smartest characters, Dogberry is a character that THINKs he’s the smartest guy in the room, and also the one who figures out Don John’s evil (ish) plot and saves the day, all completely on accident. This is the easiest character to screw up, but Fillion really managed to pull it off in a way that I didn’t think was possible. 

Speaking of the actors and the directing, I love love love the fact that they didn’t go the whole “high British accent” route. We’ve discussed in the past that theater in Shakespeare’s day was considered low-class, so it was performed closer to an American accent. (Some say closer to a Chicago Accent, which explains why Antigonus exits, pursued by Da Bears in another play. Not all these jokes are winners, folks.) Particularly since we know that Alexis Denisof can do an English Accent (unlike some other mystical father figures...) as he did it for 6 years for Joss in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. 

Yes, I’ll be the first one to admit that I was looking forward to this, more than Man of Steel. (No one tell Superman, my first love...) So yes, unless they came out and butchered the text, I was more apt to love it. There are some not great moments. The whole “Claudio is easily fooled” part is still difficult to watch, no matter how great the actors. The dramatic scenes weren’t the strongest. And they really pushed the “love is great, sex is bad” theme by switching the gender of one of Don John’s hench... um.... persons... which makes for a rather interesting moment as Don John and her make out for a little bit. (It still works, don’t get me wrong, and it ties into the idea of love vs. sex, but it’s just a bit obvious at some moments.)

But I would urge everyone to go see it. If you want to see a version of a Shakespearean play that you will understand, laugh at, and is relatable today, I would highly recommend watching this movie. Hey, it manages to be funnier than Hangover 3.

A Review of Man of Steel by Someone Who Actually Saw the Movie.

    After reading the reviews of Man of Steel and then finally going to see Man of Steel (my superpower is not letting mediocre reviews keep me away from movies) I really have to wonder if the people who reviewed the movie professionally actually watched the movie or if they knew anything about this “Super-man” that was featured in it. (My personal favorite “jab” was the one saying that there were “no glasses” in this movie, the iconic disguise, when, yep... they were in there.)

    You all know the plot by know, strange visitor sent from a dying planet realizes he’s got powers. This version does a unique thing of actually showing Kal-El/Superman/Clark using his superpowers within the first half an hour of the movie, rather than waiting for Tony Stark to build the damn suit, the spider to bite someone, or Batman’s parents die already. (which is pretty dark when you think about it.)

    This adds another layer by making Kal-El/Clark a bit of an outcast because of his powers, rather than the typical, all-American boy that everyone knows and loves. I liked the change. I like the narrative hopping back and forth so we weren’t just getting a straight out origin story of how he discovered his powers, but the complicated origin story of why he decided to help people. Of course, a giant space ship coming down and the megalomaniac alien on board saying he’s going to destroy the planet if you don’t come forward is a pretty good reason to come forward.

    Other reviews talk about how dark this film is... it actually kind of isn’t. Despite the overwhelming odds against him, including his own people shooting at him, Superman does the right thing and still believes in helping people. There’s a great message about wanting to save the day and using your powers for good.

    The actor are incredible, Henry Cavill embodies what Superman should be, and Amy Adams will make you wonder why there was ever another Lois Lane cast. She’s the perfect Lois Lane, and makes the movie as much about her as it is about Superman. And of course Michael Shannon is an excellent General Zod by way of Michael Shannon. 30 Odd Foot Grunts Frontman Russell Crowe IS Jor-El, playing him with a bit more of a an action role, which is pretty freaking awesome. The one stand-out not really mentioned in a lot of reviews is Laurence Fishburne as Perry White. While this is a minor role, there’s one scene at the end that really embodies what it means to be this character as the soul of the city. He does it.

    Also, for spoilers, there’s one major change at the end to the Superman mythos, but it corrects a long-standing joke. You’ll know it when you see it, but I liked it. A lot. I don’t think it changes anything about Superman or the story itself.

    So, should see it? Absolutely. This is one of the best movies of the summer (Along with Star Trek Into Darkness and the Great Gatsby), and in general is a great Superman movie. Take it from a real Superman fan who’s researched Superman and actually sat through the movie.

    Man of Steel: Five Shakespeare Mustaches out of Five.